Skip to main content
2:30 am
i don't like subways. i like the fresh air, the sun, the stars, the beau pi of san francisco. * beauty that's all i need to say. >> thank you very much. the public hearing is closed at this point. members of the board, i have several items i would like to raise here at this point. and i think the first would be the overall thing has been said and i agree with this completely. i'd love to see us go to north beach and fisherman's wharf and the pledge efforts to begin to look at that. there are obviously questions of financing and all of that. but it is certainly worth weill to go. i'm not sure about the suggestion to sauselido. that may be beyond our means at this point. the other two would be a wonderful way to connect the entire city. and i'll also talk a little about the timeline. i think i agree with the notion of changing the resolution to bring it back to the board
2:31 am
before the director of transportation makes the final die significance. i would suggest that the language be something along the lines of the second meeting in january which should be the third tuesday in january -- >> no, it would be january 15th or the next regular meeting would be february 5th. >> i think before, i think before that, there is so much interest in this, i think it's very reasonable to request 3 and 4 may not work in the public forum it seems to me. i would support that. i would hope board members do as well. and i would hope that the 3 seems like very reasonable options to me at this point, especially 4. i hope that works and i hope we're doing everything we can to make that happen as expeditiously as possible. we'll get reports back to the board in a periodic basis. they don't have very many meetings between now and then. just to get a sense of where it stands so the public will know. so, those are the comments i'd make. i also think the comments about
2:32 am
how north beach is different from union square, that's persuasive, different kinds of business, different kinds of support from corporation, all that kind of thing. so, those would be my comments. i'll open it to members of the board. director heinicke. >> i have a question, which is based on these presentations and the goal of extending the project further north and the goal of obviously accommodating our neighbors to the extent we can, i certainly favor option 4. i think we've heard a lot of comments of people who were just generally opposed to the project overall. those arguments continue to. some merit, but the decision has been made and i continue to support the project, especially given how far we've come. so, my question really relates to option 4. do you think it's possible or feasible or likely that we will be able to accomplish all that is set up to be accomplished for option 4 by february 1st, 2013? >> so, i think that's a fair question.
2:33 am
i guess i'd first say i wouldn't have recommended it if i thought it was not possible. i think there's a tremendous amount of work to be done and there are a lot of things that need to fall into place quickly in order to make that happen. as i mentioned before, i have been in conversation with president chiu about this. i've been in conversation with mayor lee about this. our sense was as i said before, the city family can come together and marshal the resources to try to make this happen. and if we have a willing party in terms of the property owner, i think it is possible. we have evaluated the level of environmental review that we believe would be required. we believe that it's doable in that timeline. the other approvals we believe are doable in that timeline. it's certainly by no means easy. it's by no means a slam dunk. but, again, would not have recommended it if i didn't
2:34 am
think it was viable. as i said before, i think it is a win/win scenario. it's one that i would like to see happen * . and with regard to the timing, as i tried to explain, if we don't make a decision by a certain point, we start to impact the project and put the agency and the san franciscans who fund it at risk. so, that's where we got this, the deadline from. while the specific day is not based on science, this is not an arbitrary deadline, we need to make a decision around that time if we're going to do something other than, other than the base case. i would suggest that, if i might , perhaps the wording of the resolution to address what i think is a very clear issue of trust be something along the lines that if we're not able to
2:35 am
achieve option 4, that we return to you on the meeting of february 5th, which would be coincidentally on february 1st to explain where we are. >> i personally would have no objection to that. and just to be clear, is it -- the decision under option 4 need to be made by february or all of the preconditions that we've talked about need to be sewed up? i mean, i realize there can be a point in january where it all looks like it's lining up and you and the agency decide, we're going forward with option 4, subject to some contingencies. and if those go bad, it has the negative impacts you talked about. but i think the concern from the community that we're hearing, and i know you hear this, is that we sort of set a false goal. so, i wonder if february 1st is really the anticipated deadline to have everything done, all
2:36 am
the environmental review, all the funding, all the agreements, or is the deadline really to make a decision and say we're far enough along the road that we're going to pursue option 4 despite some contingencies accepted down the line? >> i see it as the latter. if, for example, we had all of our approvals and didn't have meeting -- we were requesting a supplemental appropriation from the city and that wasn't scheduled till the second week in february, you know, what we need to know is around february 1st that we have everything lined up to be able to make this happen. if that's the case, then we can move forward even if we still have a few loose ends to tie up. as we slip much beyond february 1st, we're kind of by default making a decision on the currently approved project. that is the only point. >> sounds like you and i have the same objective. i appreciate the assurance to
2:37 am
the community members and to us that you wouldn't have put it on here for option 4 if you didn't think it was at least, you know, well within the realm of possibility. and, so, two questions. would it help us, would it help you in your political and other efforts if we were to change the whereas clause that sort of suggests all of the approvals and funding have to be obtained by february 1st to essentially say they all had to be lined up or, you know, presumed to be feasible by february 1st, number one? and number two, would it help you if, as one of our valued constituents said, that we really change the resolution to say we're directing you to make option 4 happen to the extent you can? or do you really read it that way right now? >> to the latter, that's what i read and i read it as a direction from the board to make 4 happen. >> good. >> in terms of modifying the whereas to speak to the spirit
2:38 am
of having everything lined up such that we know that, say, option 4 is certain as opposed to every last approval in place, i'm fine with that. >> well, i think -- and i'm glad you said that and i'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is important. i think there's a difference between certainty and a close -- you know, a comfort level where we're willing to go down this. and we recognize there's some risk that something may unravel and we may have to deal with it. and i think the concern i'm hearing and sensitive to is if you require certainty by february 1st, that's not going to happen. but it is quite feasible to get the february 1st for you and we can't tell you what to do, have enough comfort that it's worth pursuing this option further. that's the difference i see. >> i'm sure there's language we can find that would achieve that goal. >> [speaker not understood], the notion i suggested, to come back to this board as opposed to, say, force them and bring it back to the board at that point.
2:39 am
>> again what i would suggest is rather than trying to do something in january, that we were -- basically if option 4 isn't looking good, come february 1st, that i come back to the board on february 5th. >> [speaker not understood] will still be at the board level, which gives the public ample opportunity once again to come and talk about where we are at that point. >> correct. >> [speaker not understood] obviously try to make 4 work, it seems to be support for that, among people who support the project. members of the board, any questions or comments? >> you covered my comment. >> okay. >> we don't need to beat a dead horse, and i'm to continue beating it for a brief second. are we worrying about the language of the resolution at this point or is that going to be something -- do we have that taken care of? because i just have a slight concern on the last further resolved clause. that ties into what you -- >> the question would be if -- i think you have a pretty clear direction to make option 4
2:40 am
happen if you can. and i think a lot of the concern about the resolution is what happens if you don't. are we here by resolving -- authorizing you to do a bunch of other things? i think that is the concern in the community. if we're changing that as president nolan suggested to say, make option 4 happen, and if you can't, come back to us, it all but makes the resolution irrelevant, i think. i mean, at this point you just received clear direction from the board on one proposal. no, our city attorney never thinks these resolutions are relevant. >> i think you're free to move forward in that direction without approving the resolution. i think give guidance to the directors sufficient without approving the resolution. but i also note i think the thing that appears to generate the most concern in the resolution is actually the whereas clause which is much more specific than the resolved clauses. >> that's right. >> limit the resolution all together and do a [speaker not understood] to the board, is that something we can do? give direction to mr. reiskin along the lines we suggested
2:41 am
here, to actively aggressively pursue number 4? and report back to us the february 5th meeting which will be the next meeting after that about what's happened to that and perhaps on january 15th a report along the way of how likely it looks. >> listen, we've got a staff recommendation and i don't disregard that lightly. but the point here is we've been told by our old friend judson true and several respected member of the north beach and local neighborhoods that we've got some trust rebuilding to do. and what i hear as the biggest concern of trust is that this resolution will allow us to back slide so to another option that they don't want * so that maybe to me we junk the resolution and do everything we can to make option 4 happen. we're not making any promises. clap lap >> don't clap, there's no promises. just like i told the free youth riders, no promises, but we'll try. and then we'll come back and do
2:42 am
it again. * >> i think it would be appropriate to have some sense of the board resolution -- not resolution, some kind of the sense of the board [inaudible] -- a motion or something. >> mr. chairman, actually you can just approve a motion to take no action, to give direction to pursue option 4, and return to the board on february 5th. >> is that a motion somebody would like to make? >> i would be happy to make that motion. >> i'll second. >> further discussion? >> i would just like to make sure that we have director reiskin's approval and that we're not walking into something that isn't -- i mean, again, i don't disregard staff recommendation. >> i think that's fine. i think it meets the spirit of what we were proposing and it makes it clearer. and i think it gives the assurance that we need to the public. i think it's a good solution. >> important city departments that should be involved in this are already working together.
2:43 am
the mayor and supervisor chiu already support it. we have the sense of the board, a motion and second. any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? it passes. appreciate your efforts. (applause) >> we'll take a recess here. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> item 12, presentation discussion regarding the implementation of sunday meter enforcement. >> mr. yee is going to come up and give you an update. you had asked when we approved the budget that we return to you prior to the end of the calendar year and report to you on our progress and preparations towards the implementation of what you approved. so, we just have a kind of brief update for you and then we're here to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you.
2:44 am
mr. yee? good afternoon, mr. yee. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, members of the board, mr. reiskin. vaughan yee with sustainable streets. as you recall, you approved the enforce. of sunday parking meters as part of the last two-year budget cycle with the target date of implementation by january 6 of 2013. * so, i'm here to give you a brief update on where we are status wise on that process. basically we've taken two tracks to accomplish that goal, target date. the first is that we are focusing on the communications to try to achieve some widespread awareness of this significant policy change, and to raise awareness of the new metering hours before this target date, we are doing -- we are having -- we'll be having parking control officers to distribute fliers on cars in
2:45 am
december as part of their regular duties. we're placing advertisements on muni bus exteriors, half page ads in the various newspapers and the customer service center. we are including book slip notices in fast track quarterly summaries and also the sfmta rpp program, renewal notices. we're using the existing meters by the plate inside the dome as well as stickers, decals on the meter face itself to notify the public of this upcoming change. and we are also issuing announcements through press releases at all of our social media outlets and our sfmta website. and we also will be doing a mass e-mail blast announcement to the various parties, stakeholders, including the board of supervisors, merchants, neighborhood groups,
2:46 am
civic and religious organizations. excuse me. we also plan to have our parking control officers after the january 6 date to have a three-week basically grace period starting on january 6, 13th and also the 20th. and those three sundays we will not be citing formally violations, but instead issuing a friendly courtesy notices of the violation and the need to start complying. again, the decals on the meters of the new hours and the enforcement times will stay put on the meters. we have also met at your suggestion with a panel of religious and community representatives in mid november. its was very successful.
2:47 am
they had a lot of good suggestions on how to do outreach, and we are volunteering to meet with one of the leader of the group, mr. michael pappas, to the inter faith council to personally visit with him some problem locations that he had suggested and also work with him to see if there are some solutionses and outreach methods we can try to reach some of those affected parties to try to relieve some of the potential problems that may be faced. they also gave us quite a bit of good feedback on other issues, including the suggestion for us to start the sfmta to do more consistent applications of our, of our parking management equipment
2:48 am
and processes and regulations. we take that to heart and we will be putting a lot of those suggestions into place in the next couple months as well as the upcoming year. we have also developed a tool kit for outreach that we will be distributing to the group to help us do further outreach. and we will be extending an offer, as i mentioned, to visit with some of these potential problem areas. and we also produced about 40,000 fliers for distribution at their request. so, we'll be seeing those in the next few months. the other track we're following is the technical end in getting the machines and everything up to snuff and ready for implementation by january 6th. and on all the non-sf park
2:49 am
meters which is three quarters of the stock, they're the older variety, we're pre-programming the changes in the shop and we will be visiting the site and touching each one of them and affecting the change in the operating hours and the time limits. that will be -- that's occurring right now and we expect to finish on time. we are also updating our software on the parking management database, and we also expect that to be ready on time. the meters will have a four-hour limit and there's a capability to be prepaid city-wide on all the meters. the new as well as the older models. and you can prepay as early as 4:30 in the morning of that particular day.
2:50 am
so, for example, if you want to attend service at noon and you arrive at 11:00, you could park and then feed the meter and have it go into effect starting at noon. so, the new meters will have capability to accept credit cards, parking cards, cash, as well as pay by phone. and the older meters will be able to do three of the four. it won't be able to accept credit cards yet. so, the good news is we are in the process of issuing a new request for proposal for new meters to be used city-wide for the rest of the 75% of the meters. and we expect to receive the bids from the vendors in i think the third week of january. and we expect to start changing them out by the beginning of summer of next year. so, within a year or so, all the meters will have the full
2:51 am
capability to accept credit cards as well. another side benefit from this particular exercise is while we're upgrading the meter operation, we will also be converting the remainder of the meters city-wide to two-hour limits as you approved, i think some time back. and the rationale behind that is that that makes it more consistent and uniform throughout the city and it allows people who need that window of time to do their business adequate time to be able to do that adequately. we found from studies that the time limit in a particular area does not influence significantly the length of stay or, you know, the duration of parking in a particular time. that's measured by the true demand for how long they really need to be there. but it does offer the
2:52 am
flexibility for people to be able to stay the full amount of time in case they need it. that will also have a pretty significant side benefit. for example, mr. reiskin and i were meeting with the department of building inspection. and one of their concerns in the downtown corridor is that to go to, you know, a building to do some inspections in sequence, the one hour won't do. it's not adequate to get everything done. but the extra time, the two-hour limit would be very beneficial. we're also in the process of hiring about 40 new parking control officers. a good portion of them will be devoted to enforcing meters. we're in the process of hiring and we expect the first contingent to be on board in the first week of january if everything works to do so.
2:53 am
and they will go -- undergo through a very thorough training. and we have the existing staff ready to step in and help in the beginning. again, third sunday we'll be issuing courtesy notices. before we start citing formally. we have also gathered ahead of time before data because one of the things we said we were going to do is to evaluate the effectiveness of sunday metering and report back to you. so, we have the before data collected and that would be very useful later on when we do the evaluation. so, that's all i have. i have with me my colleagues, lee milatelo from the enforcement division as well as dee anna from communications, key players in this whole process. they're here to help me answer any questions i can't answer. >> director bridges first. director bridges expressed
2:54 am
concern about this when we adopted this and still have some. director bridges, would you like to -- >> yes, thank you, chair nolan. and thank you, mr. yee, for the update and director reiskin for following up on everything. you mentioned that you met with mr. pappas and other stakeholders in november to hear their concerns. out of that mr. pappas i'm sure as you stated identified some problem areas. what's your -- what are you doing to address this prior to implementation if anything, or are you planning on doing it later in the year? >> well, director bridges, i think that would kind of depend on what we actually find when we do the site visits and we have the further conversation with him. it depends on the nature of the specific issue. some things could be done very easily, others might take some time depending on specifically what's involved. >> and i would add that some of
2:55 am
his concerns are addressed in what we're planning to do. so, he had concerns about the older meters and would they be -- have the ability for prepay and for four-hour time duration. and as mr. yee indicated, they do, they will, and they have all the function ality for the most part in terms of payment option as the old ones except for credit card. some of the concerns that he's raising that are very legitimate concerns are ones that we have accounted for and are addressing as part of the core program. >> we have a full commitment to meet and work with him. >> the only problem with this as far as i can see, i think that is a pretty significant exception credit cards can't be used. a lot of folks are going to have to carry a whole bunch of quarters with them or come and get one of our cards. it is not going to be quite as easy as if you had the credit cards. it will be easier, most will
2:56 am
start? june? >> the installation of the new meters would start around june. and this is the schedule that, you know, we're still on the schedule that we had articulated when this was approved. >> that's a lot of quarters. >> that's part of the concern we have with senior citizens and everyone else and those problem neighborhoods he mentioned, too. >> members of the board? >> a quick question. >> sure. >> what's the feasibility of reloadable meter cards? because right now you can't reload them. you have to go back out and repurchase or -- [speaker not understood]. >> we're actually working on that as part of the rfp for the new meters that includes the reloadable parking cards. so, we're definitely going it that route. >> okay. do you have to do a -- >> he can do it on the internet. you can do it in various ways.
2:57 am
>> i have questions beyond parking cards. >> [speaker not understood]. >> so, just to clarify some of the details of this the current plan is to do this on all meters, not just pilot meters, correct? >> that's correct. >> there had been some discussion about doing this from noon to 6:00 on sundays to alleviate church going morning hours, other reasons, it's not just that, i'm sure. folks who don't go to church and have morning activities would be happy to hear. is that still the plan or are we now looking at 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.? >> it's noon to 6:00 with a four-hour limit. >> with a four-hour limit. you can prepay up to the four hours. so, the two-hour limit that's going everywhere else doesn't apply on sunday? >> that is correct. >> another question. on sundays, you do have six-wheel truck only zones. will they be converted that you can just -- >> no.
2:58 am
those loading zones most likely will remain monday through friday or monday through saturday, depending on the location. on sunday they will revert to general parking. >> okay. >> our new signs that we are installing indicate that. >> okay, thank you. >> anyone else? okay. i'm really appreciative of the outreach work to the faith communities in particular, but others as well. so, thank you. we'll be looking to seeing how this works out. members of the public want to speak? >> [speaker not understood] is the only one indicated wishing to address you on this matter. >> [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, chairman nolan, members of the board. i happened to catch ron owens this morning. he had a discussion about this topic on his radio show and people called in and people said, hey, i'm going to go shop elsewhere. yeah. you might gain a few bucks from
2:59 am
the meters on sundays, but you're going to lose a lot of taxpayer money -- sales tax money from people deciding to shop elsewhere. i'm thinking we need to have a color sticker that says operating sundays on the meters because the letters are going to start coming to the editorial pages saying what happened. they didn't know. even though you're going to do outreach, you're still going to have a lot of people who don't know. if you don't do it -- at least have television coverage and radio coverage and big-page ads in the newspapers, you're not going to be able to cover everybody. but the thing is people are going to -- once they get that whopping $75 ticket or whatever, they're going to decide they're not going to shop in san francisco. you're trying to get people to take public transit. they're not going to take all their bags shopping

December 26, 2012 2:30am-3:00am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 8, Mr. Yee 5, Nolan 3, Mr. Reiskin 3, Chiu 2, Mr. Pappas 2, San Francisco 2, Reiskin 1, Vaughan Yee 1, Sfmta 1, Weill 1, The City 1, Mr. Michael Pappas 1, Sequence 1, Lee Milatelo 1, Ron Owens 1, Entire City 1, Judson 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color